Chris Freind: Radar gun bill proposal should be jammed

Every few years, an issue appears in Pennsylvania that raises people’s antennas, only to fall off the radar months later.

Hopefully, this time will be no exception, as there is yet another attempt in Harrisburg to allow local police to use radar. In the interests of Pennsylvanians and police alike, the best thing would be seeing this bill’s progress arrested so that it fails in a speedy manner, locking up the issue for years to come.

?

One of the things Pennsylvania has done right over the years is not permitting municipal police to use radar — the only state with such a prohibition.

Advertisement

Yet, there is a clamor from certain special interests — namely local governments and some police departments — to reverse that policy and arm police with radar guns. Their official rationale is “safety,” but we all know better. The real reason is blatantly obvious: Revenue collection. So because local governments squander millions in taxpayer money and now face record budget shortfalls, they want to break the backs of citizens by employing an onerous and unnecessary entrapment system that not only is counterproductive, but also takes valuable resources away from where they are truly needed.

Consider:

1.) The police are doing just fine nabbing speeders, thank you very much. Proof? Pop in to any district judge’s courtroom and the place is packed. Law enforcement has plenty of methods for nailing speeders, all performed in real time (stopwatch, distance between two points etc.). Therefore, radar is inherently unnecessaryand would cost taxpayers more money — not just the initial cost, but also training programs and system upkeep.

2.) Is radar use subject to abuse, as some claim? Sure, especially in Podunk where Uncle Cletus serves as police chief, judge and jury, but to generalize that police across the board are not to be trusted is a grossly misguided indictment. The legitimate concern is that unintentional mistakes will be made (such as radar guns not continuously calibrated), rather than deliberate game-playing.

3.) Radar would relegate police officers to becoming revenue collectors (more than they already are) — and that’s not why they joined the force. Sure, maintaining safety on the roads is an important function of the police, but gunning people all day long just to fill township coffers is way beneath the talents of officers, not to mention creating intense boredom, which dulls their overall skills. And if radar use became law, bank on countless police departments receiving a portion of the revenue — a huge conflict of interest.

4.) Police have better things to do. There are only so many cops to go around, yet the crimes they investigate are increasing exponentially. It is imperative that we use those limited law enforcement resources as efficiently as possible — and radar use doesn’t qualify. For every officer engaged in speed trap duty, it’s one fewer expert we have dusting for fingerprints, forensically examining a crime scene, interviewing witnesses and otherwise going after murderers, rapists and robbers.

It’s a lesson learned from the NSA spying debacle. All the untold billions and countless man hours spent wastefully reading law-abiding citizens’ emails was that much less time and resources dedicated to going after the real bad guys — like the Boston bombers. We have to be smarter with the tools and talents we have.

5.) Radar would become yet another tool in the arsenal of deception, stoking a negativity in how citizens view police and leading to an “us against them” relationship on both sides. As it is, some police departments in other states (as well as Pennsylvania State Police) routinely hide radar guns on “broken-down” vehicles and farm tractors to catch those driving a bit too fast. Going to those lengths foments anger and leads to the bigger question of “what’s next?” If they are willing to deceive to that extent just for traffic violations, what else will they do in the name of “justice?”

Worse, local radar use would lead to increased use of unmarked cars in speed trap stings, with more positioned on private property (such as residential driveways and business parking lots). Not only does that practice smack of coercion and intimidation, but it is extremely dangerous, especially to women, when pulled over by a unmarked unit. The state law that should be passed would be one banning the use of unmarked cars in traffic/speeding duty. They serve no productive purpose.

?

With all the problems confronting police, stooping to the level of deception that radar invites — just to monetize routine traffic violations — transforms the respect that our men and women in blue deserve, into resentment.

The ways to deter speeding are easy: Eliminate ridiculously low speed limits (often changing with little or no warning) set for the sole purpose of nailing otherwise law-abiding drivers, and bolster police presence on a municipality’s roads with marked cars. It’s an easy equation, and not just for speeding: Increased police presence equals reduction in crime. It’s common sense.

From both the civil libertarian and utilitarian perspectives, let’s ask our legislators to place the radar gun bill where it belongs — completely off the political radar screen.

Chris Freind is an independent columnist and commentator. His column appears every Wednesday. He can be reached at CF@FFZMedia.com.